Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- From: bonomi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Bonomi)
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:34:51 -0000
In article <n3p583lu655o5n6h7ej6lh5eu306p0el9e@xxxxxxx>,
JD <mycroft.removethis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:20:23 -0000, Frank Tabor <ftabor@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron
With the numerous copy protection schemes around, it seems like he should
have been able to find one that fit his business model.
I asked him about that but in his opinion, there isn't a copy guard
out there that will do (or so, his disk guru told him). Actually I can
see his point. No sooner does a new copy protection come out than the
hackers crack it.
JD
If the application can read the information, the copy "utility" can read it.
"bits is bits", to misquote an _old_ remarkt, but with digital data it is
absolutely true.
The only functionally reliable 'copy protection' scheme for software products
is that which utilizes external cryptographic hardware -- what is usually
called a 'dongle', and hangs off a parallel (or USB) port.
Even those can be defeated, but it generally requires more effort -- which
must be expended on a copy-by-copy basis -- than the cost of additional
legitimate copies.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- From: Frank Tabor
- Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- References:
- Mountain Directory revisited
- From: Ron Recer
- Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- From: Frank Tabor
- Mountain Directory revisited
- Prev by Date: Northeastern Ga. RV Park
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Heeding Sound Advice! (was PING! We have a Winner!)
- Previous by thread: Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- Next by thread: Re: Mountain Directory revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|